Group 54:
Read Text 1 p. 7-8.
Prepare exercise II. (Sentence completion) p. 5.
(Study the introduction to the 14th Amendment presented in class)
Groups 16 and 17:
Read the texts on which presentations will be given (see below).
Prepare exercise II. (Sentence completion) p. 5.
(Study the introduction to the 14th Amendment presented in class)
Presentation topic for group 54:
Text n°1, p 7-8:
“Scholars’ Brief in Shelby County v. Holder Urges Fidelity to Text and History of Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments".
Presentation topic for groups 16 an 17:
The students working on the presentation will focus on the article from The Seattle Times: Untruth about 'anchor babies' and the Fourteenth Amendment (click on the link).
They may also use the following document as reference.
The whole class should carefully read these documents ahead of next class in order to be able to discuss this topic after the presentation.
"Are
'Anchor Babies' Sinking the American Economy?"
by Michealene Cristini Risley,
by Michealene Cristini Risley,
The Huffington Post, March 15th 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michealene-cristini-risley/the-14th_b_1343158.html
In the
wake of the Civil War, many newly freed slaves were struggling to try and
establish themselves. Lacking many of the same rights, these African Americans
were relegated to political purgatory. This was particularly true in ex-slave
states, which refused to issue even basic human rights to black Americans. To
that end, Congress moved to pass the 14th Amendment, the most revolutionary
shift in policy since the Bill of Rights, which passed July 9th, 1868.
The 14th
Amendment, in particular, its first article, established the unprecedented
policy of birthright citizenship in America. As such, any male child, born on
American soil, would be afforded all the rights of national and state
citizenship. Dangerously controversial at the time, its passage marked a
monumental step in the efforts to curtail systemic racism.
Fortunately,
time has helped to ease the horrors of slavery. Today, it is status quo for
African Americans to enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizenship.
Through successes like the civil rights movement, African Americans have
greatly elevated their social status, allowing them to compete on somewhat
equal footing in our country. In post-segregation America, very few politicians
evoke the racially charged rhetoric that used to divide our nation. Yet over a
century later, the 14th Amendment is still a hotly debated source of racial
controversy.
Recently,
the 14th Amendment has been evoked to achieve a different effect. The emphasis
has dramatically shifted away from rehabilitating ex-slaves and their
disenfranchised offspring. No one questions the citizenship of any citizen's
children, regardless of race or gender. Everyone agrees that the children of
Americans are Americans. Today, however, the 14th Amendment is being used to
achieve a different purpose; one that is creating serious cracks in the
infrastructure of our country.
Unfortunately,
the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment is subject to regular abuse,
with non-residents exploiting its language to facilitate their own residency.
The past few decades have seen a rash of pregnant foreigners intentionally
giving birth on American soil, in order to ensure citizenship for their
offspring, and potentially themselves.
This
abuse typically takes two forms; known colloquially as either "anchor
babies" or "birth tourist." The former is the practice of having
a baby in America in order to immediately "anchor" the parents in our
country, while the latter cases typically returns to their home nation with
their infants, with the intention of sending them back to America later in life.
Both types of babies are born into citizenship, and they both qualify to have
their parents become citizens once they
turn 21. However despite their similarities, the two practices appear to be
having a dramatically different impact on the American economy.
A wealth
of statistics exists indicating that anchor babies are a tremendous drain on
our economy. The problem is the parents of anchor babies have no way of legally
paying taxes, as they themselves are non-residents. Yet they still regularly
use all the tax-sponsored services available to Americans. They birth their
children in our public hospitals, fill our schools with non-English speakers,
and crowd our prisons with drug crime. In just California alone, non-
residents, make up nearly 30% of our prisons, costing California over a billion
dollars annually in incarceration. Moreover, the violence typically associated
with the Mexican drug trade has increasingly spilled across the border,
affecting the quality of life across southwestern states.
As far as
healthcare, illegal aliens give birth to about 340,000 children nation wide
each year, imposing tremendous medical costs on hospitals. Several hospitals,
including ones in Stockton, CA and Dallas, TX, report as many as 70% of their
deliveries are to non-residents. Similarly, since the parents of infant
citizens still qualify for welfare in order to protect the child, the Center
for Immigration studies estimates nearly $2 billion dollars goes to illegal
aliens annually, in the form of food stamps and free lunches.
Over 29%
of all education dollars get spent on teaching anchor babies, including over $1
billion dollars teaching English as a second language, according to FAIR.
Similarly, several affected states offer Spanish translation services in many
public arenas, at an additional cost to the taxpayers. All told, FAIR estimates
that as much as $100 billion tax dollars get spent on illegal aliens annually
-- this is just in education.
Baby
tourists, on the other hand, appear to be doing far less economic damage.
Relative to anchor baby parents, baby tourists are usually much wealthier,
affording their own medical care and largely avoiding incarceration while
visiting. They come over in prearranged programs, catering to elite and wealthy
families who can afford the thousands of dollars in fees. Prospective mothers
pay handsomely for these services, between $15,000 and $45,000 per child. These
programs include coordinated tourist programs, which involve sightseeing and
opportunities to spend even more money on high-end shopping. However, this is
still a program that takes advantage of the amendment.
These
programs are becoming increasingly popular throughout Asia. It has become the
popular craze amongst upper class women throughout the region, especially
China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong as they see it as an opportunity to eventually get
their children enrolled in American Universities. This creates a drain for
resident students, as the increased population allows for less opportunities
and higher costs for those who have lived their lives in America. Similarly,
bills like the Dream Act aim to offer financial aid to nonresident children,
siphoning funds from taxpaying students. South Koreans also find it attractive,
as it precludes their children from mandatory military service (We pay to have
American security forces in South Korea). The trend is also catching on outside
Asia, with Nigeria and Turkey both reporting an explosion in birth tourism
popularity.
The only
area of the American economy negatively impacted by baby tourists is in our
higher education. The key motivator for baby-tourist parents is to ensure
in-country or in-state tuition, or even just basic access, for their children
at top American universities. However since this is spread out across public
and private universities, it is impossible to determine specifically how many
tax dollars get spent educating such students. Instead, these students end up
spending foreign dollars here in America; on things like tuition, rent, and
living expenses. Plus, they have the ability to stay and work in America after
graduating, contributing their advanced skills to our economy.
Baby
tourists also become a much smaller problem when viewed relative to their
anchor baby counterparts. The tourism happens far less often than anchor
babies, 7,000 versus 340,000 per
year. The
parents of baby tourists almost always pay their own medical fees, as well as
additionally convenience fees that get infused into our economy. Their
offspring are usually much better educated than their anchor baby counterparts,
leading to more hard science jobs entering the U.S. workforce.
While
revising the first section of the 14th Amendment may seem like a handy fix, it
is only a part of the much larger discussion on immigration reform. We still suffer
racial bigotry in 2012, and while I do believe that we must address the
infrastructure costs of illegal immigration; the many reasons for the swelling
tide of illegal immigrants deserves careful attention before we throw the
anchor baby out with the bathwater of one of our most important constitutional
guarantees. There must be more precise ways to fix this problem than a
constitutional amendment.
